It seems that the New York Times’ new pay-wall structure is a bit off kilter:
Here’s what The Times doesn’t seem to get: sooner or later readers are going to cancel their print subscriptions and go digital. The Times’ pricing scheme is only going to encourage them to go with someone else’s digital.
I don’t like to make predictions, but I have a hard time imagining their current “pay labyrinth” scheme even lasting til the end of the year. I sure hope it doesn’t last long. It’s sad that instead of competing for the future by pricing for the digital age, The Times has opted to fight an inevitably doomed battle to hold on to the past.
This is the hand he’s been dealt by hisotry. He’s a reluctant warrior. So it’s not as if he’s converted to being a cowboy. So I think people recognize the difference between him and former Pres. Bush.
Therein lies the media meme for Obama’s Libyan War–despite the implied virtuosity of a liberal President, who is seemingly above the fray and the ickiness of constitutional channels for declaring war, reluctantly commits US personnel and treasure to yet another Muslim country, and commences bombing the hell out of them.
But it’s all good because he’s not George Bush.
I first read via Twitter sometime on Friday that some network anchors were making their way to Japan to “cover” the disaster there. My first literal reaction was one of disgust. This sums it up perfectly:
[L]et’s call this what it is: A publicity stunt, a star-system celebrity-status game where it’s not enough to let reporters do the reporting, but instead the networks want to send their Famous Faces With Big Names.
The purpose is to signify that this is really important news and that their anchors aren’t just Pretty People who read a Teleprompter in a Manhattan TV studio but are actual honest-to-God journalists. It’s like how, when TV news does a story about Congress, it’s important that the reporter be on camera with the Capitol dome in the background — “See? He’s really there at the Capitol, covering Congress!” — even if what he’s reporting is just stuff that anybody could have picked up off the AP wire.
So now we’ll get to watch footage of Christiane Amanpour and Anderson Cooper walking through scenes of earthquake-and-flood devastation, because it’s important for the networks that we see this story “reported” by their $4-million-a-year superstars.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. There’s nothing more important to these people than self-aggrandizement and a desire to feel relevant in an environment that with each passing day, finds them further and further behind every breaking news story. Thank goodness for other sources of information like Twitter, from which I get the bulk of breaking news anyway.
Not a surprise, but still eye-opening:
[...] 84.4% of iPad owners primarily use their iPad to follow breaking news and current events. As a result, newspaper subscriptions, once the staple of the newspaper industry, are being cannibalized by the iPad. Slightly more than 30% of iPad owners do not subscribe to a newspaper, preferring to consume news on their tablet device. Of the 931 respondents that have a newspaper subscription and read an hour’s worth of news each day on their iPad, more than half (58.1%) intend to cancel their newspaper subscriptions within six months. A growing 10.7% have already canceled their subscription and have switched to iPad-only reading.
This big ado about Keith Olbermann being suspended from and, now reinstated to, his show on MSNBC is something I generally consider a non-story. I mean, really…political donations to liberal politicians? Is anyone really surprised that Keith Olbermann is a political hack?
MSNBC made a big stink about it (Olbermann apparently broke some in-house rules about such donations) and now–not so much of a stink. I’m not a fan of Olbermann, but the geniuses at MSNBC look like real buffoons right about now.
Historic as in “bad”:
CNN’s prime time ratings woes are only increasing with new program Parker Spitzer.
Monday night was the lowest weekday prime time rating average in more than 10 years, since June 28, 2000. And it wasn’t just the 8pmET that was seeing low ratings.
Larry King had even lower ratings tha Parker Spitzer, with just 196,000 total viewers. That’s less than Rachel Maddow’s A25-54 demo average in the same hour.
The jokes pretty much write themselves at this point.
The new CNN entry “Parker Spitzer” may not be the answer to that network’s chronic ratings problems in prime time – at least from the evidence of its first night on the air.
The political discussion program, featuring the hosts Kathleen Parker, the conservative columnist, and Eliot Spitzer, the one-time governor of New York, fizzled badly in its initial outing Monday, attracting only 454,000 total viewers.
That not only left CNN far behind its main rivals — Bill O’Reilly on Fox had 3.1 million on Fox News and Keith Olbermann had 1.1 million on MSNBC – but it also trailed Nancy Grace on the HLN channel, who had 468,000 viewers.
Even worse for the new CNN program, it lost viewers from the show on just ahead of it, “John King USA,” which had 471,000 viewers.
Apparently the only people shocked by the failure of a political talk-show hosted by failed liberal governor and scumbag Elliot Spitzer and an establishment-approved “conservative” in Kathleen Parker, are those in the media.
According to Richard Cohen’s latest column, the Tea Party is just like..(wait for it)….the National Guardsmen who killed the college students at Kent State in 1970. Or something.
But forget the politics of it. This is one seriously bad piece of writing.
Update. I’ll leave it to Ann Althouse to sum up the idiocy of Cohen’s column:
Cohen plunges into his 40-year-old memories about how awful it was when the National Guard shot and killed 4 college students who were protesting the Vietnam War. And naturally, in Cohen’s bike-drained, folk-music befuddled brain, that leads to what’s wrong with… Glenn Beck!
What’s driving the growth of reporting on technology? The blogs:
“In technology coverage, what happened was blogging,” [Rivera] said. “And the best bloggers got readers, which encouraged more bloggers to emulate them. And it just added pressure for everyone to become better and faster. A lot of the characteristics of blogs made their way into more established media sites, even as some of the larger blogs became more like mainstream media. And mainstream media got a lot more bloggier.”